A thought occurred to me, I am hearing that he had an entanglement with the camera mount. If that is true and it was the main that was caught, he might have been free stowing most of his lines. I had spoken to him about this in the past and he did not think it was much of a problem.

I explained about pilot chute malfunction and how it could lead to a big mess of lines all over his back.

Does anyone know if he kept this practice of free stowing all but the locking stows up?

In reading the article the witness said he heard the parachute and looked up to see the jumper at about 70M (230 feet). If the canopy was elongated (assumption because of noise report) at 230 feet why didn't it inflate? Reserves are supposed to open in no more than 300 feet. It should take about a second to go from pilot chute launch to bag extraction.

John, can you expand on your thoughts about rsl? As this was a camera jump, it seems you believe different to 'conventional' wisdom.

Times have changed and cameras are smaller (even when jumping video and SLR) than they used to be, canopies more aggressive, and camera wings are an additional complication. So maybe the argument in favour of an rsl is stronger than the risk now?

Bill, I hope you are not saying that you have got to be lucky to get a reserve to open in 300 feet. If you are that is an inditement of our equipment. Sure mains take longer by design but a reserve is required by regulation to open in 300 feet, lucky or not.

Quote:

Also, keep in mind that people are incredibly bad judges of altitude from the ground.

True, but to "hear" and look up to see the object thru inpact is usually worth considering. If he had had an AAD we could tell.

JS

AAD firing altitude was determined by taking the required maximinum deployment distance (300ft) times the 2.5 safety margin commonly used by NASA to get 750 feet. Now some want and will get adjustable firing altitudes to allow them to be adjusted up to 1500 feet AGL. This is something to chew on, but on another thread.

As this was a camera jump, it seems you believe different to 'conventional' wisdom.

Times have changed and cameras are smaller (even when jumping video and SLR) than they used to be, canopies more aggressive, and camera wings are an additional complication. So maybe the argument in favour of an rsl is stronger than the risk now?

Yes, and when I've jumped the occasional side mount Sony and every jump with my GoPro I leave my RSL hooked up. Although my canopy is not aggressively loaded (a little over 1.3), I still think that too many people think they need to stop spinning in order to fire their reserve. As soon as you chop, you're traveling in a straight line. Perfect time to deploy the reserve. I do consciously tuck my head forward to keep as much room as possible between my reserve and my camera(s).

I see too many videos of cutaways where, instead of putting their feet on their butt and aggressively arching, people flop around like a bad AFF student doing his first diving exit. I think better training and practice would lead to people having more stable cutaways and reserve deployments.

The ratio of reserves-tangled-on-cameras to cutaway-then-no/low-reserve pull is very low. I'm no expert camera guy or equipment guru. All I know is what I've seen and the reports I've read. I feel people are too eager to ditch the RSL, as if it were like training wheels. Soft pillow handles, big wings, harnesses loosened for swooping and highly loaded canopies seem to sometimes present problems that our friends haven't been able to solve in time. Many would have been saved by a short line of nylon ribbon.

I see too many videos of cutaways where, instead of putting their feet on their butt and aggressively arching, people flop around like a bad AFF student doing his first diving exit. I think better training and practice would lead to people having more stable cutaways and reserve deployments.

I'm with you here. I've been leaving the RSL hooked on camera jumps. I've added "Arch like a Mu+h$R XXXXXXX" to my EP's. On one camera jump (with a shitty opening) where I had pulled a little high, I located my RSL tab as the canopy was sorting itself out. I had time/altitude to make that call. Canopy eventually opened, all is well. The point being... "EP's change with additional tasks. Practice them and use them."

OK, I have it on good authority, although I don't know what rig it was, that the guy was jumping a rig that had been grounded, which he smuggled on to the DZ.

As a result, of the fatality, CAA instigated an investigation, which apparently has been conducted in such a heavy handed manner, that the DZO concerned, has taken his own life as a result of the pressure he was put under. Possibly CAA's reaction in the wake of the fatal crash at Fox Glacier.

So this incident has cost 2 lives, one a good friend of mine who I've known since 1977, and who had over 10,000 jumps to his name. He left a wife and two kids...

OK, I have it on good authority, although I don't know what rig it was, that the guy was jumping a rig that had been grounded, which he smuggled on to the DZ.

As a result, of the fatality, CAA instigated an investigation, which apparently has been conducted in such a heavy handed manner, that the DZO concerned, has taken his own life as a result of the pressure he was put under. Possibly CAA's reaction in the wake of the fatal crash at Fox Glacier.

So this incident has cost 2 lives, one a good friend of mine who I've known since 1977, and who had over 10,000 jumps to his name. He left a wife and two kids...

It could well mean the end of a well run DZ.....

Really sad news.

RIP Dave.

This brings up an important point.

I don't know if the rig was grounded for being worn out, but if you look at the DZ roster (his name has now been removed), almost all of the instructors have several thousand jumps; some have 10,000 or more.

Which means most of them are all-day-every-day jumpers, which means their gear gets the poop beat out of it and, human nature and making the next turn being what it is, a lot of necessary maintenance no doubt gets deferred or discarded.

A similar thing happened in the US a few years ago - not a death but quadraplegia paralysis. Staff jumper with thousands of jumps beat his gear half to death so it returned the favor; one of the worn-out Slinks gave way on his landing turn, the canopy collapsed and he hit the ground from high up plus whatever canopy speed he had before it collapsed.

It may turn out that this fatality had nothing to do with poor maintenance and the grounded rig wasn't a factor, but grounded rigs usually mean "not airworthy" rigs, and next time you see some of the 10,000-jump instructors walking around the DZ, check out the condition of their gear.

And as the New Gestapo in the US likes to say: "If you see something, say something" -- because it's just as wrong to jump worn-out gear when you have 10,000 jumps as it is to jump a highly-loaded canopy when you have 100 jumps. In both cases, you're wrong -- dead wrong.

Which means most of them are all-day-every-day jumpers, which means their gear gets the poop beat out of it and, human nature and making the next turn being what it is, a lot of necessary maintenance no doubt gets deferred or discarded.

I would like to think this is not majority of high jump number jumpers. At least it's not at the DZ's I frequent.

There is a difference between jumping 'worn' gear, which I'm sure other people at any DZ do, and sneaking a rig that is so worn it was grounded on to the plane and jumping it. We're not even sure if the rig being worn was the reason it was grounded. Either way, no matter what the reason is for grounding, it's wrong to get on a plane with gear that has something so obviously wrong with it that it was grounded. That's like a big F-U to everybody who's jumping with you, and in this case, the DZO especially. It's not just yourself you're endangering with selfish choices like that.

What kind of time frames do the CAA work with for getting reports out on incidences and fatalities? Be interesting to see if this unfortunate incident is directly related to a gear problem that is associated with why the rig was grounded in the first place.

Just remember gear can be grounded due to paperwork, or even a reserve being 1 day past its repack cycle. While Robins post is valid and should be remembered, it doesn't mean the grounding was related to the incident.

AAD was mandatory, I understand the gear in question did not have an AAD.

Yeah, thats what Iheard....no AAD. I'm sure in other respects the gear was perfectly serviceable. The compulsory AAD may have been a DZ only rule, not sure what the rule is in NZ now on a national basis, Tiger maybe you can enlighten us. (I'm not up to speed with current NZ DZ regulations)

However if the AAD "mandantory" rule was in the DZO's ops manual, CAA would have used that as a stick to beat the DZO with.

Thanks for the info -- and it's something I forgot in general -- that some DZs ground rigs because they don't have AADs and for no other reason.

My Old School brain just can't remember that silliness sometimes.

A lot of tandem only DZ's do that as a matter of policy, most likely the case here.

I'm not sure actually writing into an approved operations manual is a good idea however, because it gives some know nothing pen pusher a stick to beat you with if there is an incident.

Its something I might have as an informal policy which would be pretty easy to implement as an informal code of practise pertaining to the DZ. After all its only a back up device. Unfortunately it has become one of those things that through time, is now seen as an "essential".

FWIW I haven't jumped with an AAD since my student days, unless one happened to be on a student rig I was doing a test jump on....and in most of those cases I would have had it switched off.

But thats just me. I know they save lives, but like you, as one of the "older school", I prefer to rely on my own survival skills. Maybe when I'm senile and 80 they'll put one on me.....

Maybe in his mind he was waiting for the (non existent) AAD to fire, and delayed dumping his reserve till too late....it was suggested to me that he spent too long trying to sort out the main because he didn't want the DZO to find out he was jumping his rig without one.

To my mind, I doubt he would have been processing such thoughts in the middle of dealing with a mal...

Not sure if there is too much more we can glean from this incident. It might be another thing for the "let everyone jump a camera despite their experience" mob to rethink though.

How can anyone require the instulation of a non-certified piece of equipment into a FAA Certified piece of equipment which might fail the FAA Certified equipment. The first rule of AAD instulation: "Must not interfear with the normal function of". Until we get AAD's which won't interfear the function of the reserve, if it fails, then AADs can not be mandatory. Cutters are the problem they have and can fail as they have failed in the past and might again in the future. I would love to see AAD on all rigs but we are a long way from ready. Get rid of the cutter, do it a different way. Todays cutters look very good but should not be trusted. I have a waiver on my tandem for instulation approval. The FAA agrees with this position.

AAD was mandatory, I understand the gear in question did not have an AAD.

Thanks for the info -- and it's something I forgot in general -- that some DZs ground rigs because they don't have AADs and for no other reason.

My Old School brain just can't remember that silliness sometimes. 44

I've come to no longer share that attitude. Even if I don't necessarily agree with a certain safety rule at a particular DZ, it's not me that has to deal with the fallout of a fatality, it's the DZO.

I'm on record throughout this site as supporting whatever rules DZOs choose to impose or not impose; it's their business to run as they see fit. As you say, they're the ones who have to deal with the fallout therefrom.

Unless I missed it, though, no one has yet said clearly whether or not the "AADs required" was a DZO rule or regulatory requirement. Could someone provide that info or steer me to the relevant post?

Thanks for the info -- and it's something I forgot in general -- that some DZs ground rigs because they don't have AADs and for no other reason.

My Old School brain just can't remember that silliness sometimes.

A lot of tandem only DZ's do that as a matter of policy, most likely the case here.

I'm not sure actually writing into an approved operations manual is a good idea however, because it gives some know nothing pen pusher a stick to beat you with if there is an incident.

In reply to:

Excellent point. I work often in a highly regulated industry, and part of how you design your processes and documentation is to leave as few sticks as possible lying around for auditors to beat you with.

In this case, if the DZO created the "AAD required" rule, then he did in fact create a "paper crime" that is easy to prove and that's what investigators get paid to do -- find provable crimes. (If the "AAD required" rule is a regulatory requirement, then it's the state creating the paper crime trap, which is a different subject.)

If the DZO does have discretion, though, your suggestion makes a lot of sense, because then no paper crime can be committed, and any informal code is just that -- informal, and thus very hard for investigators and their ilk to get a handle on in terms of finding evidence to support charges of some kind.

Of course, you have to balance out limiting your legal exposure on that score with what Andy 908 referenced; given today's training, a DZO has no guarantee that the 500-jump wonder showing up at the DZ does in fact have the knowledge and skills necessary to reasonably survive a jump without an AAD.

Kinda reinforces the notion that these days you have to be half-crazy to want to be a DZO or run any business that caters to risk-takers.

Condolences to the family and friends of this DZ for the way he ended up.

Without wanting to get too heavily into the pros and cons of AADs versus personal choice and getting back to this this incident, its hard to see how having an AAD could have done anything except improve the outcome.

Not sure if there is too much more we can glean from this incident. It might be another thing for the "let everyone jump a camera despite their experience" mob to rethink though.

Are you saying he didn't have enough experience to jump a camera? I thought he had 3000 jumps?

Not at all, with his jumps and experience he was very well qualified to do so. My point was more aimed at the few who think its OK for a 20 jump wonder to wear one, of which there have been several advocates on this very forum.

His jumps and experience however, were not enough to save him from the situation he got himself into, in that his EPs were not able to save him.

The AAD may well have activated his reserve at a higher altitude, which may have saved him. In the absence of any further detail though, we can't say that for sure.

Whatever, anyone relying on an AAD to save them shouldn't really be getting in the plane. I don't consider the presence, or lack of an AAD a factor in this incident. The chain of human error has several probable links in the result.

No argument there, however I don't use one and haven't since I got off student status and cut the Stevens-line off my main.

I would agree an RSL is an asset for many jumpers on most kinds of jumps, however it also has a few pitfalls that one might want to consider after gaining a thorough understanding of their equipment.

Because of the type of skydiving I often do, having all kinds of extra stuff hanging off of me in various places I believe obtaining a perfect body position prior to reserve activation increases the likelihood of an uneventful deployment.

Certainly an acute awareness of body position & altitude are paramount when choosing to remove the nylon ribbon, but it's a trade-off I feel outweighs even the 'limited liabilities' it brings.